What's It About
An artcle by David Brittain, of North Herts and Beds Humanist Society
Sometime before Christmas I attended a "Non-Christmas" party (otherwise known as a "Winterval" Party, which I quite like) and, I was asked by one of the non-humanist guests what this "humanism malarkey" was all about...
"Well ... It's more than just atheism ..." I said. "It's a bit like ... Well ... Being good without God."
My response was rather glib - or at least, that's how it felt. I looked at my inquisitors face, and it was clear he was no more satisfied with that answer than I was.
"OK ... But what do you believe in?" He persisted. "Are you saying you just ... Don't believe in anything?"
"That depends on which humanist you're talking to." I said. "Personally, I do believe in something. I believe in people. In my view, people are basically and fundamentally 'good' ... That is ... 'Social' creatures as distinct from 'unsocial', or 'antisocial' and if left to their own devices people will usually do what's right!"
He looked genuinely puzzled. "I don't get that at all. Why should they do what's right?"
It began to dawn on me that I was being drawn into a deep philosophical discussion, and I began to feel a little uncomfortable ... This was supposed to be a party, after all, and I really didn't want to get into a serious debate.
"Well," ... I said ... "... humans have the gift of empathy. We are able to see and feel things from the other fellow's point of view, and that allows us to be compassionate and social creatures..... "
"OK. I can buy that. But only so long as it's someone from within your own tribe. There's good evolutionary advantage in that!"
That was not what I meant. "Not really. I do mean anyone. After all, a child can weep with emotion when she sees an animal suffering on TV. Something that is another species ... Or even just a cartoon character! That's what I mean. We are all born with a sense of empathy - or it develops naturally - and if we remain undamaged as we go through childhood, we remain empathic as adults, and that's a great moral guide."
I was suddenly aware of the awful silence which can follow your words when you suddenly discover that everyone has been listening to you, and they are either shocked, or thinking over what you've just said. After a short while someone from the back said ... "Well ... I think that's hopelessly optimistic. People are motivated only by self interest!"
I felt foolish. I didn't want a debate in someone else's home, and the question took me by surprise. As a result, my answer made me look (I felt) a bit like a happy-minded simpleton. The empathy argument alone did indeed appear weak, and difficult to defend ... But, thinking it over in the cool light of day, I don't think it is really weak at all - it's just that my answer was superficial.
That's not to say, of course, that people are not antisocial sometimes. At their worst, people can be very selfish towards each other, and sometimes downright nasty - that's self evident, but it can't be the whole truth of the Human condition, and - to me at least - that is equally self-evident. If it were, we would never have established a civilisation beyond the tribe my "party friend" talked about, where people only watch out for their family or people they know.
That's the level that Chimpanzees and Gorillas have reached, but civilisations the size and complexity of city states and nations have to be founded on co-operation between strangers, and that would most definitely not be acceptable to the social structure of our anthropoid cousins ...
So what is it that binds human super-tribes? Does empathy come in here?
Well ... No, not exactly. Not yet. I can imagine my inquisitor arguing that there is of course a measure of self-interest here. Sometimes people cooperate because of some obvious shared interest ... Or because they share the same leader .... Or the same culture ... Or perhaps just the same language ... Or maybe even - let's be honest - the same race, or colour. But that is not enough. All of the examples mentioned above are littered with treachery, and have no place with empathy. "Social" behaviour in these cases can usually be described as resulting from self interest ...
But how do you explain charity? Why do people part with cash for people they don't even know and are never likely to even meet? What is it that makes perfect strangers stop to help others who have perhaps collapsed in the street, or who have had an accident? And why do people continue to risk their own safety protecting others who are injured, threatened, or in some other danger? Sometimes we even risk our lives for animals. Consider the activities of anti-foxchunters, of anti-vivsectionists, of the compassion in farming lobby, or Greenpeace's activities regarding whaling. You may or may not agree with their policies, but that's not the point. The fact that we can feel like that about anything which is not in our immediate interest is cause for optimism, in my opinion.
This is where empathy comes in. It's ridiculous to declare that the human race is populated by angels, but equally wrong to say that we are all merely self-interested, and not concerned about anyone outside our immediate circle. Ever since we have been human, we have walked a tightrope between self interest and compassion. It is the one thing that I can think of that makes us unique. Some creatures are entirely solitary, others are social, and a few - a very few - like the great apes and a few other mammals - ever have to balance both instincts. But nowhere near as far as humans. We have developed that balancing act into a sense of right and wrong, and this is reflected in the importance we place on the judicial system.
I would ask you to think that idea over. Solitary creatures, like most cats for example, have no empathy at all. It's unnecessary and positively dangerous for a cat to show any empathy towards another cat .... Or mouse for that matter! And on the other hand, social creatures like ants or bees wouldn't hesitate to lay down their lives for good of the hive. The cat is entirely selfish, and the ant is entirely selfless. But neither has what we would call "empathy".
In humans, empathy is an evolutionary product of the balancing act we all have to make every day. We have our own needs, and it's our understanding of what the other fellows needs are which makes us human. We all have that balance built in, and it is where the balance actually falls in each individual that probably has a hand in making us either more social, or more solitary. At the extreme ends, the more solitary types would be more inclined towards criminality, whilst those at the opposite end are more likely to be altruists. I don't mean to suggest that this is all hard-wired and that we don't have a choice about how we behave - we do - but i's easier for some to be "social" than others. Only at the extreme ends of the Social/Solitary scale do we not have that choice, where our basic born nature is so strong that we are not in control, and the tiny minority at those extremes are closer to the "black or white" simplicity of our cousins in the animal kingdom.
It's empathy - not God - which makes us good, and I hope I have persuaded you that there are good biological and evolutionary reasons why our sense of empathy has helped make us the dominant species on the planet.
Although there are terrible things happening in the world, the founding structure of our mega-civilisation remains strong enough to remain sound (at least in the western world). If it wasn't, civilisation itself would eventually fall to dust. As a species, then, I would argue that our compassion is generally stronger than our selfishness, and tends to prevail. That's my reason for optimism. ... That's why I believe in humanity ... Why there is always reason to hope for the best, and why I am very happy to call myself a humanist. We don't need God to make us good. In fact - since we invented God in the first place - religion can be seen as an interesting by- product of our struggle to identify what's good and what's bad.
At its best - and let's be honest here - religion can be compassionate, but at its worst it is self-centred and ugly. One of the problems I have with religion in general, though, is that it tries to take us as children, and dictate moral values to us without giving us the freedom to think it out for ourselves. When that happens - and we learn to ignore our natural feelings - tragedy is always going to be a near neighbour. Would I discuss this idea at the next party? Not likely!!
